Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a court determines the scope and content of the normative relationship between contracting parties, it draws on a range of sources: the communications of the parties to the agreement, rules and principles of mandatory law (eg ‘public policy’, ‘illegality’), default rules, and a body of procedural rules and substantive standards that govern the ‘construction’ of the agreement. The process of ‘construction’ is not necessarily limited to a hermeneutical elucidation, ie the exegesis of the communications. Across European legal traditions, doctrinal means have developed that serve the purpose of adding provisions to agreements regarding situations the parties are deemed not to have addressed in their agreement, thus diagnosing ‘gaps’ or ‘lacunae’ in the contract. Art 6:102 of the PECL presents a compromise: regarding the substantive principles guiding the implication of terms, the PECL attempts to combine the common law concept of implying terms with substantive civilian standards.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.022 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".